After 18 years of operation, NASA has switched off Ulysses, the space probe designed to study the properties of solar wind, the heliosphere magnetic field, and the solar radio bursts that can greatly affect our gadgets, telecommunications, and every electronic system here on planet Earth. It was the first object to see and study our Sun's poles.
Read Ulysses Mission Operations Manager Nigel's email message to the Ulysses community ...
Clint Bradford, K6LCS 909-241-7666
I often wonder, is it is not possible to configure any of these "non-functioning" satellites to suit our needs? I mean we can do an awfull lot with very little. There are alot of "non-functioning" satellites up there. We are a creative bunch and enjoy the challange.
73 Bob W7LRD
Seattle
---- Original Message ----- From: "Clint Bradford" clintbrad4d@earthlink.net To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2009 9:00:01 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: [amsat-bb] NASA Kills Ulysses
After 18 years of operation, NASA has switched off Ulysses, the space probe designed to study the properties of solar wind, the heliosphere magnetic field, and the solar radio bursts that can greatly affect our gadgets, telecommunications, and every electronic system here on planet Earth. It was the first object to see and study our Sun's poles.
Read Ulysses Mission Operations Manager Nigel's email message to the Ulysses community ...
Clint Bradford, K6LCS 909-241-7666
_______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
About the only thing we could do is use them as training guides for receiving weak signals. Satellities are not designed to qsy, or do anything other than they actual function(s), specified long before they were ever built. Add more to a bird increases complexity, and also failures.
I'll bet they turned it off to free up that frequency for something else. If that is the case then we can't even really try monitoring.
I've often wondered about the ham community using old systems but except for really rare cases, they are just too specific to do anything for us.
--STeve Andre' wb8wsf en82
On Wednesday 01 July 2009 12:13:19 w7lrd@comcast.net wrote:
I often wonder, is it is not possible to configure any of these "non-functioning" satellites to suit our needs? I mean we can do an awfull lot with very little. There are alot of "non-functioning" satellites up there. We are a creative bunch and enjoy the challange.
73 Bob W7LRD
Seattle
---- Original Message ----- From: "Clint Bradford" clintbrad4d@earthlink.net To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2009 9:00:01 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: [amsat-bb] NASA Kills Ulysses
After 18 years of operation, NASA has switched off Ulysses, the space probe designed to study the properties of solar wind, the heliosphere magnetic field, and the solar radio bursts that can greatly affect our gadgets, telecommunications, and every electronic system here on planet Earth. It was the first object to see and study our Sun's poles.
Read Ulysses Mission Operations Manager Nigel's email message to the Ulysses community ...
Clint Bradford, K6LCS 909-241-7666
I know it would be expensive but on the "if you spread your net wide enough" view of thinking, could we not approach commercial satellite projects prior to launch and bung a transponder on them only to be used when the primary mission fails? OK, so you might win some, might lose some and I know it would be expensive but it seems better than the situation we have now, plus we could be potentially building in some long term birds that would replace the current ageing fleet. It would be a long term view, but it would be something!
Presumably this has been brought up before but no harm in re-hashing it for any new ideas especially with the BoD voting soon to happen! :-D
73
David
- David KG4ZLB www.kg4zlb.com
STeve Andre' wrote:
About the only thing we could do is use them as training guides for receiving weak signals. Satellities are not designed to qsy, or do anything other than they actual function(s), specified long before they were ever built. Add more to a bird increases complexity, and also failures.
I'll bet they turned it off to free up that frequency for something else. If that is the case then we can't even really try monitoring.
I've often wondered about the ham community using old systems but except for really rare cases, they are just too specific to do anything for us.
--STeve Andre' wb8wsf en82
On Wednesday 01 July 2009 12:13:19 w7lrd@comcast.net wrote:
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
-
Thats a neat idea. We'd have to build the whatever to the physical specs provided, and pay for the extra fuel needed. Sadly, I think in order to make this work we're talking real money, but perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps there is a tax-writeoff somehow? I'd like to hear of what the amsat folks have thought of along these lines; they know of the conditions of business in the field.
--STeve Andre' wb8wsf wn82
On Wednesday 01 July 2009 12:43:39 David - KG4ZLB wrote:
I know it would be expensive but on the "if you spread your net wide enough" view of thinking, could we not approach commercial satellite projects prior to launch and bung a transponder on them only to be used when the primary mission fails? OK, so you might win some, might lose some and I know it would be expensive but it seems better than the situation we have now, plus we could be potentially building in some long term birds that would replace the current ageing fleet. It would be a long term view, but it would be something!
Presumably this has been brought up before but no harm in re-hashing it for any new ideas especially with the BoD voting soon to happen! :-D
73
David
David KG4ZLB www.kg4zlb.com
STeve Andre' wrote:
About the only thing we could do is use them as training guides for receiving weak signals. Satellities are not designed to qsy, or do anything other than they actual function(s), specified long before they were ever built. Add more to a bird increases complexity, and also failures.
I'll bet they turned it off to free up that frequency for something else. If that is the case then we can't even really try monitoring.
I've often wondered about the ham community using old systems but except for really rare cases, they are just too specific to do anything for us.
--STeve Andre' wb8wsf en82
On Wednesday 01 July 2009 12:13:19 w7lrd@comcast.net wrote:
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
This sounds like the AMSAT-Intelsat deal except that the Intelsat agreement would allow the amateur payload to operate in parallel with the primary payload. A number of the RS series amateur satellites also operated this way.
73,
John KD6OZH
----- Original Message ----- From: "STeve Andre'" andres@msu.edu To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 16:49 UTC Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: NASA Kills Ulysses
Thats a neat idea. We'd have to build the whatever to the physical specs provided, and pay for the extra fuel needed. Sadly, I think in order to make this work we're talking real money, but perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps there is a tax-writeoff somehow? I'd like to hear of what the amsat folks have thought of along these lines; they know of the conditions of business in the field.
--STeve Andre' wb8wsf wn82
On Wednesday 01 July 2009 12:43:39 David - KG4ZLB wrote:
I know it would be expensive but on the "if you spread your net wide enough" view of thinking, could we not approach commercial satellite projects prior to launch and bung a transponder on them only to be used when the primary mission fails? OK, so you might win some, might lose some and I know it would be expensive but it seems better than the situation we have now, plus we could be potentially building in some long term birds that would replace the current ageing fleet. It would be a long term view, but it would be something!
Presumably this has been brought up before but no harm in re-hashing it for any new ideas especially with the BoD voting soon to happen! :-D
73
David
David KG4ZLB www.kg4zlb.com
STeve Andre' wrote:
About the only thing we could do is use them as training guides for receiving weak signals. Satellities are not designed to qsy, or do anything other than they actual function(s), specified long before they were ever built. Add more to a bird increases complexity, and also failures.
I'll bet they turned it off to free up that frequency for something else. If that is the case then we can't even really try monitoring.
I've often wondered about the ham community using old systems but except for really rare cases, they are just too specific to do anything for us.
--STeve Andre' wb8wsf en82
On Wednesday 01 July 2009 12:13:19 w7lrd@comcast.net wrote:
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
This is an intriguing possibility and perplexes me somewhat they (AMSAT) hasn't mentioned it, or something similar. For instance, every launch has a ballast load. Why is it that the ballast cannot be replaced with a cubesat? Why aren't commercial sats required to have a amateur band transceiver installed, as mentioned here and elsewhere, to activate when the primary mission ceases? Public utility companies and regulated companies such as AT&T help us routinely.
Of course the easy answer is 'no', but a thoughtful consideration from the people who deal with this on a daily basis might be more nuanced. It's not a technical issue, is it?
Moreover, rigging a series of sats with a transmission system that switches on in the event of catastrophic failure or switching off of the main system offers the possibility of establishing a sat network capable of vast distance datacom at no expense to the primary carrier and of great benefit to the general public and science.
Isn't it time we move to working on a deep space internet system that the commercial folks don't want to spend a lot of money on, and that we (ham folks) can help by proving-in the concept? Seems to me we can do this without a lot of expense but with the foresighted help of the commercial folks.
Dave
DM78qd // KA0SWT
If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners.-- Johnny Carson
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of STeve Andre' Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 10:21 AM To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: NASA Kills Ulysses
About the only thing we could do is use them as training guides for receiving weak signals. Satellities are not designed to qsy, or do anything other than they actual function(s), specified long before they were ever built. Add more to a bird increases complexity, and also failures.
I'll bet they turned it off to free up that frequency for something else. If that is the case then we can't even really try monitoring.
I've often wondered about the ham community using old systems but except for really rare cases, they are just too specific to do anything for us.
--STeve Andre' wb8wsf en82
On Wednesday 01 July 2009 12:13:19 w7lrd@comcast.net wrote:
I often wonder, is it is not possible to configure any of these "non-functioning" satellites to suit our needs? I mean we can do an awfull lot with very little. There are alot of "non-functioning" satellites up there. We are a creative bunch and enjoy the challange.
73 Bob W7LRD
Seattle
---- Original Message ----- From: "Clint Bradford" clintbrad4d@earthlink.net To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2009 9:00:01 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: [amsat-bb] NASA Kills Ulysses
After 18 years of operation, NASA has switched off Ulysses, the space probe designed to study the properties of solar wind, the heliosphere magnetic field, and the solar radio bursts that can greatly affect our gadgets, telecommunications, and every electronic system here on planet Earth. It was the first object to see and study our Sun's poles.
Read Ulysses Mission Operations Manager Nigel's email message to the Ulysses community ...
Clint Bradford, K6LCS 909-241-7666
_______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Think about it.... If you had a multi mega dollar project, that your livelihood and career were resting upon and someone came along and wanted to add un-needed complexity and additional equipment that may or may not interfere with your primary mission, how anxious would you be to share the ride? How many bad days have you had that started with someone telling you that what they were going to do would have no impact on you? And then later it did?
Just being realistic, Joe kk0sd
-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of Dave Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 12:23 PM To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: NASA Kills Ulysses
This is an intriguing possibility and perplexes me somewhat they (AMSAT) hasn't mentioned it, or something similar. For instance, every launch has a ballast load. Why is it that the ballast cannot be replaced with a cubesat? Why aren't commercial sats required to have a amateur band transceiver installed, as mentioned here and elsewhere, to activate when the primary mission ceases? Public utility companies and regulated companies such as AT&T help us routinely.
Of course the easy answer is 'no', but a thoughtful consideration from the people who deal with this on a daily basis might be more nuanced. It's not a technical issue, is it?
Moreover, rigging a series of sats with a transmission system that switches on in the event of catastrophic failure or switching off of the main system offers the possibility of establishing a sat network capable of vast distance datacom at no expense to the primary carrier and of great benefit to the general public and science.
Isn't it time we move to working on a deep space internet system that the commercial folks don't want to spend a lot of money on, and that we (ham folks) can help by proving-in the concept? Seems to me we can do this without a lot of expense but with the foresighted help of the commercial folks.
Dave
DM78qd // KA0SWT
If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners.-- Johnny Carson
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----Original Message----- From: amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@amsat.org] On Behalf Of STeve Andre' Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 10:21 AM To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: NASA Kills Ulysses
About the only thing we could do is use them as training guides for receiving weak signals. Satellities are not designed to qsy, or do anything other than they actual function(s), specified long before they were ever built. Add more to a bird increases complexity, and also failures.
I'll bet they turned it off to free up that frequency for something else. If that is the case then we can't even really try monitoring.
I've often wondered about the ham community using old systems but except for really rare cases, they are just too specific to do anything for us.
--STeve Andre' wb8wsf en82
On Wednesday 01 July 2009 12:13:19 w7lrd@comcast.net wrote:
I often wonder, is it is not possible to configure any of these "non-functioning" satellites to suit our needs? I mean we can do an awfull lot with very little. There are alot of "non-functioning" satellites up there. We are a creative bunch and enjoy the challange.
73 Bob W7LRD
Seattle
---- Original Message ----- From: "Clint Bradford" clintbrad4d@earthlink.net To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2009 9:00:01 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: [amsat-bb] NASA Kills Ulysses
After 18 years of operation, NASA has switched off Ulysses, the space probe designed to study the properties of solar wind, the heliosphere magnetic field, and the solar radio bursts that can greatly affect our gadgets, telecommunications, and every electronic system here on planet Earth. It was the first object to see and study our Sun's poles.
Read Ulysses Mission Operations Manager Nigel's email message to the Ulysses community ...
Clint Bradford, K6LCS 909-241-7666
_______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
_______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
participants (7)
-
Clint Bradford -
Dave -
David - KG4ZLB -
Gary "Joe" Mayfield -
John B. Stephensen -
STeve Andre' -
w7lrd＠comcast.net